David Killed Goliath Twice?

1 Samuel 17:49-51

New King James Version (NKJV)

⁴⁹ Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth. ⁵⁰ So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David. ⁵¹ Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. And when the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

1 Samuel 17:49-51

English Standard Version (ESV)

⁴⁹ And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground.
⁵⁰ So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. There was no sword in the hand of David. ⁵¹ Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

An Example Of Rational Thought

“If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what would be the point if we don't have the very words of scripture? ... It's a bit hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we don't even know what the words are! This became a problem for my view of inspiration; for I came to realize that it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place. If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given them to them... The fact that we don't have the words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us. And if he didn't perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words."

--Bart Ehrman, "Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the Bible and why"

Josephus's Jesuses

From the II Errancy discussion list, January 9, 2002:

HELEN
I once took the time to count up all the Jesuses listed in

Josephus from I think it was 100 BC to 50 AD. It was a

relatively large number, like 40-50 of them. Most of them

were minor political or religious leaders. I think there
were several Jesuses listed in the Talmud for the same

period. There are even at least two possible passing references

to other Jesuses in the NT for heaven's sake. In some very

old manuscripts of the gospels' Barabbas (Aramaic name

means "son of the father"), a supposed revolutionary political

leader, has the first name of Jesus, and there is a Jewish

magician with the Greek name Elymas and a Hebrew name

of Bar-Jesus (son of Jesus) who Paul out magics in Acts

chapter 13. It is not hard to imagine that stories from
either of these two men's lives or any of the other Jesuses

could have added to the gospels' myths. When it is considered

that the gospels were written at least 30-40 years after the

events they describe and there were all these Jesuses

running around doing things that were being remembered

in folk tales, I would think that it is reasonable to suspect

there was far more than one human Jesus that inspired

the stories of the gospels. If you add to this possibility

that any good story about a Jewish religious teacher who was
addressed in the story by his followers as simply "Rabbi" might

also have mistakenly become part of the Christian mythology,

I think the idea that no one "Jesus" of the gospels ever existed

is very reasonable.

TILL
It's rather odd that Josephus, who was born shortly after the

time Jesus was allegedly crucified, would have mentioned

so many obscure Jesuses but mentioned Jesus the

miracle-worker and resurrected one only in two short
statements whose authenticity has been challenged by

many scholars.

Farrell Till

Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent"[sic]? (2)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 18, 1997:

TILL
Otsen has cited the amazing historical accuracy of Luke as an argument
for biblical inerrancy, as if he somehow believes that because one
biblical writer was accurate in some geographical, political, and social
matters, he was therefore right in everything he wrote and that the entire
Bible must, as a consequence, be inerrant. In an earlier posting, I listed
over two dozen references that Luke made in the book of Acts to
extraordinary events. I challenge Otsen to present to us some kind of
extra-biblical evidence to prove that at least some of these events actually
happened. Until he can do this, he is in effect arguing that because Luke
knew the geography of the region he wrote about and the names of some
public officials and such like, we can thereby know that Luke was also
accurate in his reporting of the various miracle claims found in his gospel
and the book of Acts.

Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent" [sic]? (1)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 17, 1997:

TILL

Otsen has posted the trite fundamentalist argument about Sir William

Ramsay, who was presumbably a biblical skeptic until he studied the

writings of Luke, after which he was so impressed by Luke's historical

accuracy that he became a dedicated Christian.  When Ramsay was

discussed earlier on the list Steve Carr noted in a posting to Errancy

date May 10th that Ramsay was actually a "Bible-believing historian." 

Carr made the following statement in his posting:

"In Ramsay's book, he describes how as a young man at Oxford ( a place

which *did* not accept religious sceptics), he studied the 39 Articles

of Faith for his Divinity exam. He corresponded with Bishop Lightfoot.

He spent months studying the NT and the OT (which he described as life-

giving). He describes the Epistle to Galatians as especially moving. He

was reminded often of his mother's love for Paul."

A Letter To A Concerned Christian Friend

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne
[Edited 12-31-13 from previous post]

I’m writing this letter to let you know the main reason why I am no longer a Christian, no longer believe that Yahweh is God and no longer believe that the Bible is the word of God. These decisions were not made lightly; they were made after much thought and study, and I hope you will see these were the only real choices I had. But if not, as always, I am ready to consider what you or anyone else has to say on this issue.

Simply, the omni characteristics that the Bible writers give Yahweh are incompatible with the New Testament teaching that he will send the vast majority of humanity to his eternal hell.

The Bible claims that Yahweh is:

1) Omniscient- If he is all knowing, then he knew if he went with the creation of man and the “plan of salvation” for man as revealed in the Bible that the vast majority of humanity would eternally perish (see Mt. 7:13-14).

2) Omnibenevolent- The word benevolent means “characterized by kindness and concern for others” (Answers.com). There are many verses that express his love, compassion and mercy for humanity; 2 Peter 3:9 says that it is not his will that any perish.

I think any Christian would agree that the Creator is greater than the creature (man). So God’s love must be of a much greater magnitude than man’s. But no loving human would conceive a child and allow it to come into the world knowing beforehand that this child would wind up in an eternal hell. So certainly a loving Creator would not do so. But the Bible teaches that this is just what Yahweh did--multiplied billions of times, and continues to allow millions to come into the world every year knowing that most will wind up in his eternal hell.

3) Perfect and Complete- Acts 17:25 says “Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything…” The Bible teaches that Yahweh doesn’t need anything and certainly doesn’t need anything from man. The thought comes to mind--why then did he create man knowing the eternally terrible outcome? It couldn’t have been for anything that he needed; so it must have been merely for something that he wanted but didn’t have to have. However, this is completely inconsistent with his alleged love for man and his will that no human perish. So the only conclusion is that it was not necessary that he create humanity in such a way that any would perish

4) Omnipotent- If he is all powerful this means that if it was his will that no one perish, then no one would perish. And if he is also all knowing, he could have and would have come up with a plan in which no one would perish. For example, he could have created humans like himself with free will and the inability to sin.

5) Sovereign- This means that there is no authority higher than him, and thus nothing could have overruled him in achieving his will that not one human perish.

Conclusion:

No God with these omni characteristics could/would have allowed even one, much less multiplied billions of humans to eternally perish in hell. However, the Bible teaches that the alleged omni God Yahweh will do just that, allow untold billions of his human creation to eternally perish. Therefore, the Bible, being contradictory on this most important of subjects, loses all credibility and cannot be the inerrant, inspired word of God and its alleged omni God, Yahweh, cannot be God.

Some Objections Answered:

But God wants man to have free will and choose to serve him. There would be no value to God in creating robots who had no choice but to serve him.

The omni love, compassion and mercy that he has for man could not have wanted this—knowing what such a flawed, sin-prone creation (Romans 3:23; I John 1:8) would do with this type of free will and the terrible eternal results.

Yahweh also allegedly has a different want. However, this want is consistent with his omni characteristics. That want is that no one perish. Because of his love for man, he could not have wanted something that would cause an infinite eternal calamity to befall his beloved human creation. It is obvious that his love for man, together with his omniscience, omnipotence and sovereignty would not have permitted this eternal tragedy to happen. Therefore, this type of free will could not have been something that he wanted nor could/would have allowed.

Another type of free will is the type that Yahweh allegedly has. He has free will but can’t sin. He is said to have created man in his image; why then wouldn’t he have truly created man in his image with the type of free will that he has? Because he loves man, wants no one to perish, is omniscient, omnipotent and sovereign, and there was no necessity that man be created in a scenario in which the vast majority would perish, he would had to have created man this way (or something similar). And since Yahweh has value, has this type of free will and is not derogatorily considered a robot, then why wouldn’t man also have value (which Yahweh doesn’t need from man anyway) if he had this type of free will and also not derogatorily be considered a robot?

Jesus died for your sins. Why won't you believe in him, obey him and save yourself?

The New Testament and Christians make much of Jesus’ alleged sacrifice to save man from eternal hell and the love that was shown by Yahweh in providing it. But if Yahweh has the omni characteristics that the Bible claims, he would had to have known, before he created the first human, that this sacrifice by Jesus would not accomplish his will that no human perish. He had to have known that it would only save a comparative handful. So, knowing this, the only way that his love could really have been shown toward man would have been in creating man in a way that would achieve his will that no one perish (it not being necessary that he create man in any other way).

Sending Jesus as a sacrifice was part of the “plan of salvation” revealed in the New Testament that would not achieve his will of no one perishing. In fact, under this New Testament plan the vast majority of humanity would wind up eternally perishing (refer back to Mt. 7:13-14). So the “plan of salvation” in the New Testament involving Jesus’ sacrifice has to be considered a puzzling claim, being inconsistent with the characteristics alleged for the omni God Yahweh. This enormously underachieving act is not what Love (see 1 John 4:8) could/would have done if Love is omniscient, perfect and complete, omnipotent, and sovereign. It would have been Love’s will that no one perish—exactly what 2 Peter 3:9 claims—and with these omni characteristics his will that no one perish would have been accomplished.

God cannot do two mutually exclusive things at the same time. He cannot give man free will and make him incapable of sinning.

This objection assumes that free will and the inability to sin are mutually exclusive; i.e., in the same class with the impossiblity for Yahweh, even with his alleged omni characteristics, to be able to make a square circle.

However, free will simply means that one is free to choose between one or more options. But options can be limited. For example, neither I nor any other human has the physical ability to jump to the moon. Although I have free will, jumping to the moon is not a choice that I can make. Indeed, mankind has many such limitations on his free will.

It would not be possible for a God with the omni characteristics that Yahweh is alleged to have to give man the option to choose anything that would cause man to eternally perish.

What possible motivation could such a God have to not limit man's available free-will options to those that would not put him in jeopardy of eternally perishing?

Beliefs--Be Careful

An excerpt from an internet debate I recently read:
 

Christian:

"when people are on the outside, they aren't going to understand it. Being on the inside, I just can't explain it. God's love is something you have to experience firsthand." 

 

Skeptic: 

I was a Christian until age 21. Therefore, I was on the inside, and I do understand it. When you think God loves you, it feels great. When you think you're going to heaven, it feels great. When you think you won the lottery, it feels great. The belief can make you feel great, independent of whether [the] belief is true or not.       

 

People love to believe in gods. That fact makes it prudent to carefully vet one's beliefs to try to make sure they are in line with the evidence, rather than being in line with what we want to believe.